Assaulting the ‘Assault Weapons’ Assault

Well, if you haven’t seen the minions on the left frothing at the mouth over so-called assault weapons, then you’re missing all the “fun.” The left’s narrative on guns is spinning completely out of control. Every time one of the anti-gun, anti-Bill of Rights zealots—i.e Piers Morgan, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama and ilk—speak about guns, it becomes painfully obvious they have no frickin’ idea what they are talking about.

But that doesn’t stop folks like Sen. Feinstein from leafing through a gun catalog and deciding which guns look “scary”—so-called assault weapons—and creating an extensive gun ban list based on nothing more than appearance and emotional impact. And it doesn’t stop Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder from insisting we move forward posthaste to ban all the guns on Feinstein’s ill-advised list.

Just think about the whole term “assault weapon” for a minute. It’s a bit redundant, isn’t it? Aren’t most weapons used to assault? Or are they? Oh, now I get it! See, a weapon can be used for assault, or a weapon can be used to defend oneself from an assault. Now we’re getting to the crux of the biscuit. Smell what I’m stepping in?

Recently, the DHS made a request for 7,000 5.56x45mm PDW’s (Personal Defense Weapons). These rifles would be considered Class 3 “restricted” weapons—meaning: a civilian without a proper FFL could not purchase a PDW like DHS is requesting. The weapon is a SBR (short-barreled rifle), which are highly regulated. PDW’s may feature collapsible-folding stocks, which facilitates easier concealment and transport. Additionally, they are select-fire weapons that can fire in full-auto (machine gun) or semi-auto (one round at a time) mode. DHS claims these weapons are “suitable for personal protection.”

Yet a civilian model AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which is not a SBR-style select fire weapon with collapsible-folding stock, is considered an “assault rifle” when in the hands of a private U.S. citizen. Most legal handguns, and many rifles, are legal semi-automatic firearms. Now the anti-gun extremists of the left wish to demonize semi-automatic firearms in the mad dash to ban firearms, period. That is why I announced to my followers on Twitter that the AR-15 rifle will heretofore be known as a PDF (Personal Defense Firearm), not an “assault weapon.” If you’re on Twitter, be sure to Retweet if you agree.

The AR-15 rifle is heretofore known as a PDF (Personal Defense Firearm), not “assault weapon” … Retweet if you get it. #2A#tcot

Piers Morgan had Dana Loesch back on his show to talk about guns again. One of Morgan’s guests called a handgun an “assault handgun.” Dana rightly called him out on this by stating she had never heard a handgun referred to as an “assault handgun.” Neither have I, or anyone knowledgeable about firearms, for that matter. No one calls handguns “assault handguns” … well, no one but the state-run press. Once again, it’s all for the emotional impact. We gotta make it sound spooky and scary. Right, guys?

So, government officials are allowed to have rifles called “personal defense weapons” that feature select fire-capability, 30-rd. magazines and shortened barrels, while civilians with semi-auto-only rifles, with less capability and features, are referred to as “assault rifles.” Fascinating.

The history of the term “assault rifle” is an interesting one. It was the Germans during WWII who first developed a small arm that combined the capabilities of a rifle and a sub-machine gun. The result was called the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44 / MP 44). The German word Sturmgewehr roughly translates to “assault rifle” in English.

Interestingly, Adolf Hitler hated the new rifle; he did not like the smaller round the StG 44 used. So, the General Staff used a bit of psyops on DerFührer to make the gun sound more fearsome by calling it an “assault rifle.” The same sort of psyops are being employed by the mainstream media to make legal guns sound more fearsome and lethal.

What is quite telling to me is the left’s sole focus on gun violence exclusively. There are more people murdered each year with baseball bats and hammers than there are with guns, yet the left only focuses on guns. Hmmm. Why is that? Don’t people who get bludgeoned with hammers and baseball bats matter too? Do those on the left not care about all victims of violence? If not, why not? Aren’t we trying to reduce violence? I mean, if we’re going to ban or restrict guns, then it is perfectly logical to ask why we would not ban or restrict baseball bats and hammers.

But I think we know why the left is not concerned about baseball bats and hammers. It is the same reason armies of repressive regimes around the world arm their troops with weapons like the PDW’s the DHS wish to arm themselves with, as opposed to hammers or baseball bats. It’s a no-brainer. Know what I mean, Vern?